It’s happened to all of us. You wrote a perfect brief: The law was clear and seemed to be on all fours with your facts. A slam dunk, no way the judge could rule against you. And you lost! Then you seethed about the judge: dumb, arrogant, “result-oriented,” and worse.
What happened? You could be right about the judge. But maybe something else had occurred. Maybe — probably, in fact — the judge was trying to achieve “justice” and was not going to let a little thing like the law stand in the way. Lord Denning tried to justify this: “If there is any rule of law that impairs the doing of justice, then it is the province of the judge to do all he legitimately can to avoid that rule — or even to change it — so as to do justice in the instant case before him.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
